After 3 years and multi millions of pounds the greater Manchester M60 smart motorway is open. No additional capacity and it’s made absolutely no difference to traffic flow as it is always congested at rush hour the speed of the traffic is self regulating as it always was. Quite often the variable limit is in reachable. What a complete wast of time and money.

Seriously, what alternative - and I'm not suggesting 'cost no object' because neither of us is that daft - could be implemented? For example, a fair chunk of the recent M3 Smart conversion (e.g. J4 - J4A) runs through the centre of a housing estate https://goo.gl/maps/rqxjFo4ed4G2 so how would widening to 4 lanes + hard shoulder be achieved? Since that wasn't envisaged when building took place (I don't know whether road or houses were there first), what level of road expansion is appropriate now to 'future proof' it? What would you siggest, 5 lanes + hs each way? D6+1?

Or here https://goo.gl/maps/Mc6EBytYjZC2 - I'd be really interested (as, I'm sure, would many other people) to hear how this could be widened to provide D4+1 . . .

One from a recovery driver. Here's their industry best practice guidance:- When working on SMART motorways you should only provide service if the casualty vehicle is situated in an SOS Area or if the lane has been closed as detailed above. Do not rely on a red X closure sign.http://www.survivegroup.org/download_fi ... 20v418.pdfAnd anyone who thinks that rear flashing red lights will make a difference to their conspicuity and the actions of other drivers is, sadly, very mistaken.

HGVs crashing. So that's the road's fault how, exactly? Nothing at all to do with other drivers not identifying the broken down vehicle and reacting in time? Never mind Smart motorways, what happens on a trunk road, where there's no hard shoulder? How do you suggest that problem is addressed?

I never said that I had any answers to any of the problems but the facts are undeniable, no matter how hard you defend them, so called "smart" motorways are a cheaper way of increasing capacity at the expense of safety. Highways England's (or is it the Highways Agency) own figures show that the accident rates are higher post conversion, and no, I don't have a link to the figures, it was on Radio 4 a while ago.

Strangely Brown wrote: the facts are undeniable, no matter how hard you defend them, so called "smart" motorways are a cheaper way

Cheaper than what? If you're making that statement (as 'fact') then there has to be an alternative.

And where have I 'defended' them? I'm being realistic. One of the links you posted was just plain wrong - that recovery operative shouldn't even be working in a 'live' lane (unlike on a trunk road) if he's following industry guidelines (read the document - search for 'smart' - there are several sections relating).

And police needing a hard shoulder for safe stops? Watch this and then tell me how 'safe' it is: